Objection to Airly Colliery modification 3 (extending 162/91 consent for a year) due to inappropriate consent conditions for a NPW Act reserve

Transcription

1 Tuesday July 8 th, 2014 Mining and Industry Projects NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Sir/Madam, Objection to Airly Colliery modification 3 (extending 162/91 consent for a year) due to inappropriate consent conditions for a NPW Act reserve Need to confirm adequate minimisation of subsidence impacts associated with Bord and Pillar Mining Methods The Colong Foundation agrees with the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Advisory Committee that the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area should be added to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area once mining at Airly Colliery has been completed. For this intention to be successfully achieved, any modification 3 consent must require maximum tilts and strains specified as specified on page i of the executive summary and on page 29 in section 6.1 of the environmental assessment. There must be no exceptions to vertical subsidence being a maximum of 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m. The Colong Foundation is confused by Centennial Coal s remarks in its June 2014 environmental assessment that suggest mining subsidence be greater than the above undertakings. On page 11 the June 2014 environmental assessment states that modification 3 would extend the life of the existing consent to 31 October 2015, this implies that there would be no change to any consent condition other than the expiry date. Surely regulatory and determining authorities can determine appropriate consent conditions for a modification consent? The modification as proposed by Centennial would apparently include a mine method and design that allows Full extraction in areas outside Environmental Protection Zones with

2 supercritical void widths and maximum subsidence of 1.8 m (page 11, Section 3.1 mining under the proposed modification). Subsidence of 1.8m is totally unacceptable must be removed from any extension of development consent under Modification 3. The Colong Foundation for Wilderness is a member of the Special Management Committee, established under the 1991 consent. This Committee received a presentation by Centennial Coal on September 14, 2010 regarding its intended mining operations at Airly Colliery. Slide 12 of that Centennial Coal presentation gave the following undertakings: Different layout depending on depth: Quartering <120m depth; Partial extraction of pillars >120m depth; No mining <20m depth. No intersections <30m depth Barriers and compartments isolate extracted areas Remaining coal supports overburden Very low levels of surface subsidence (Centennial Coal, Sept 2010) The relevant slide from this presentation is attached to this submission as Attachment A and the minutes of 14 September 2010 are provided as Attachment B. These Special Monitoring Committee minutes state that mine would use a Partial extraction technique instead of full extraction methods to minimise subsidence, prevent damage to aquifers and allow flexibility of mining to cater for varying underground conditions and surface features. The Colong Foundation assumes that these undertakings to the Special Monitoring Committee are further evidence that Centennial Coal must not cause a vertical subsidence of greater than 125mm, a maximum tilt of 2.5 mm/m; and a maximum strain of 2.0 mm/m. Given these undertakings, the proposed extension of consent by one year for mining operations must specify subsidence criteria that are in the executive summary and page 29, with no exceptions. The December 2013 EPBC referral adds further confusion. For example, documents another inappropriate proposal for a total subsidence of 0.5 metres under the historic oil shale ruins. Such variations are unacceptable. The subsidence criteria proposed in the executive summary of the June 2014 environmental assessment for Modification 3 must be the criteria used as a condition in the modification consent, not those in 162/91 consent. Consent 162/91 is no longer appropriate The 162/91 consent is out of date and any modification of consent for continued mining operations at Airly must ensure minimal surface subsidence. Circumstances have changed, as the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area was created on March 4, 2011.

3 The Colong Foundation does not accept that it is appropriate to continue mining for a one year under the old regulatory framework that permits subsidence of 1.8 metres, as if there has been no change in land use or formal company undertakings regarding minimal subsidence. The development consent for this mine must be amended to reflect these circumstances. We appreciate that Centennial Coal has not been able to meet its obligations regarding a new development application for the entire operation before expiry of the old consent. This oversight does not, however, justify rolling over an inappropriate consent conditions into the proposed modification consent. In this interim period the existing consent should be modified. The condition that allows for 1.8 metres of vertical subsidence must not be migrated into the modification 3 consent. New development application must be for the entire mine operation Further, the proposed new major project assessment, called the Airly Mine Extension Project (SSD 12_5581), must consider environmental management within the existing mining lease area. Development consents should lapse on in expiry and new one issued to allow mining operations to adapt to changed circumstances. Adaptive management should operate in these circumstances. Airly Mine Extension Project environmental assessment must not be constrained to the new lease area, as has been proposed by Centennial Coal. The regulatory framework for development control regarding the expiry of old consents must require an environmental review and issue of a new consent for the entire mining operation. The existence of mining lease 1331 is does not preclude changes in the development control of activities under NSW planning legislation. Oil Shale Ruins should be treated as an area of special significance The June 2014 environmental assessment, Centennial Coal ignores the oil shale heritage in its mining operation area. Centennial Coal has not indicated the location, character and extent of these important ruins on Figure 6 on page 31 of the June 2014 environmental assessment. These ruins are indeed sensitive cultural features and should have been indicated on Figure 6. Centennial does not propose in its June 2014 environmental assessment to protect the oil shale ruins from pillar splitting or quartering, such as proposed in relation to the stone cottage.

4 The allegation made by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (April 1998) that the Airly Shale Mining Complex is only of local heritage value is ludicrous. Those who have examined these ruins are impressed at the level of preservation and unique character of the miner s dwellings on Mount Airly. I know of no better preserved site for such heritage in NSW, including Newnes and Glen Davis. The Colong Foundation opposes the proposed mining operation as it does not adequately identify or protect these historical oil shale ruins. The Foundation disappointed with the failure by Centennial to refer to, assess and protect the heritage values of these ruins in the proposed Modification 3 environmental assessment. The Foundation believes that the proposed mining operations will have environmental impacts on the oil shale heritage. Centennial Coal must not reduce, split or quarter coal pillars under the Airly oil shale ruins. There should be no noticeable subsidence impacting on the oil shale ruins. Management of product and rock waste stockpiles The company owns large tracts of cleared land at Airly. Centennial should remove cattle and revegetate its properties to manage its properties in a manner more consistent with the adjoining national parks and reserves. The Foundation understands that Centennial has a plan to separate fine and coarse mine wastes. This plan may be part of a proposal to market coal product to the local power plant market. This plan may explain why large stockpiles of coal have accumulated at the mine. The management plan needs to consider the landscaping of coal product and waste rock piles in relation to parks and popular tourist viewing points, such as the Glen Davis Road and even Pearsons Lookout. Visually prominent waste and product heaps must be appropriately screened. The mess created at the head of the Wollangambe River catchment by Centennial s Clarence Colliery should not be repeated here at Airly Colliery in the Capertee River catchment. The company must screen its operations and prevent visual blight in a popular tourist area, the Capertee Valley. Airly Colliery should be subjected to continuous rehabilitation and landscaping. The coal waste piles should be top sealed with clay as soon as possible to prevent contamination of groundwater resources through heap leaching. Such leaching leads to more or less permanent source of downstream pollution. Capping of waste heaps should also be a priority at Centennial Coal s Clarence Colliery.

5 Impacts on the World Heritage Area Water management Water discharged from this mine will have critical impacts when the effluent affects the World Heritage Area downstream. Omission of these impacts and failure to consider downstream impacts on the World Heritage Area in the modification 3 proposal is of concern. There will be water quality impacts, they should be part of the modification assessment process and the potential to pollute the World Heritage Area are deemed a controlled action in relation to SSD 12_5581. So the omission of this assessment is a serious concern. The proposed operations under Modification 3 are very likely to discharge mine effluent into Airly Creek. Such discharges would impact on the Gardens of Stone National Park, in the Greater Blue Mountains Area. Airly creek flows directly into the adjoining World Heritage Area. Water treatment of the effluent from this colliery to remove salts or dissolved metals should be required. Airly Creek is in a very good condition but has very small flows. Mine effluent discharges are likely to have a much greater effect on the previously pristine downstream ecology than if Airly Creek were a larger stream. Conclusion The Colong Foundation is very concerned that the proposed partial extraction of the coal pillars will see a greater risk of mine subsidence related damage in the Mugii Murum-ban State Conservation Area. Wording of the June 2014 environmental assessment in relation to mine subsidence must not result in mining methods causing impacts on the natural environment, particularly internal clifflines and pagodas, springs and groundwater, as well as on oil shale heritage sites. Mine intensification by stealth is inappropriate and the ambiguities in the environmental assessment regarding subsidence must not be migrated into the development consent. Images depicting some of the Mt Airly oil shale ruins are below. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this modification proposal. Keith Muir Director The Colong Foundation for Wilderness

6

7